WHEN JOKES NEED TO BE PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION

There is no dearth of laws addressing obscenity or profanity. Rather than suggesting more curbs on the freedom of speech, the judiciary should address the laws' overuse and misuse

- KALEESWARAM RAJ

HE Ranveer Allahbadia episode has posed some consequential questions on freedom of expression, obscenity, and the extent and nature of restrictions on individual liberty.

According to some viewers, Allahbadia's comments on the YouTube show India's Got Latent were laced more with profanities than with humour. Multiple police reports were registered against him in different states. He, in turn, approached the Supreme Court challenging them.

The court prevented Allahbadia's arrest, but as a pre-emptive injunction also prohibited him from airing any new content until further orders. This is deeply troubling.

During the hearing, the Supreme Court underlined the need to have a national law on digital content, a suggestion that was readily accepted by the Centre. The Union government is of the view that a new legal framework to regulate content on digital platforms should be evolved.

According to the central government, the "misuse of free speech" on digital platforms calls for stronger laws. Pertinently, the Union's move is at the instance of observations from the top court. This situation is extremely problematic.

Freedom of expression is a constitutional imperative. It's not as if a majority of the people on their own will always achieve and maintain it. Had that been the case, totalitarian regimes in the guise of socialism or autocracies disguised as democracies could not have come into being. Many people might opt for the security of 'unfreedom' rather than the uncertainties of freedom.